On 21 August 2015 at 19:09, Emil Velikov <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 03/08/15 19:09, Emil Velikov wrote: >> On 3 August 2015 at 17:17, Matt Turner <matts...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> On 17 July 2015 at 19:09, Matt Turner <matts...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Hello all, >>>>>> >>>>>> A few days ago I realised that BSD make (bmake) is available in the >>>>>> Archlinux repos, so I decided to give it a try for drm & mesa. >>>>>> >>>>>> While the former was working (minus a small patch) mesa is not so lucky. >>>>>> >>>>>> This series attempts to remove the GNU make idioms, with the first two >>>>>> being the base essential for a successful build from tarball. >>>>> >>>>> ... why should we care about non-GNU make? GNU make has nice features >>>>> that we want to use and we use them. I don't see the benefit. >>>>> >>>> A few reasons: >>>> - It will allow the OpenBSD people to use upstream mesa and devote >>>> that time to something more useful ? >>> >>> Mesa builds on OpenBSD already, as far as I know. The build system >>> isn't holding back contributions. >>> >> They use an in-house bmake compatible system rather. So as they hit a >> bug, it's hard to establish if it's due to their build or not. That, >> plus the serious rework they need to do in their build, contributes as >> to why they're not updating mesa as frequently. >> Would be great to spare them those obstacles, even if they choose to >> be slightly different ;-) >> >>> I still don't follow how making the build system compatible with >>> non-GNU make is beneficial. >>> >> Let try this from another angle. Even if there is zero benefit, do you >> foresee any issues with making it compatible ? Afaics it won't make >> anyone's job harder - I/Jonathan will send a quick every so often and >> things will just work for everyone. Or maybe there is some subtlety >> that I'm missing ? >> >> As mentioned before - there seems to be only one pattern "at fault", >> plus it's been addressed with the series. >> >>>> - Mostly a single pattern/issue/thinko seems to be at fault. >>>> - The rules already look a bit shaky :-) >>> >>> I don't understand what these mean. >> Imho a handful of the Makefiles in src/mapi src/mesa/ are inconsistent >> (and confusing) comparing to their dri/glx/egl/gallium counterparts. >> >> The lex/bison/python rules being a good example. With these we provide >> explicit info (expand $<) and provide a more consistent look. If they >> look harder to read/grasp/etc. just say so and I'll update things >> accordingly. >> > Hi Matt, > > Please, state your technical conserns, elaborating a bit on each one, so > that I can try and address them. > > I'm still uncertain why you are unhappy with the series - is it because > it starts with "bmake" :P. replacing "$<" with "foo.py" can cause > confusion/issues in the long term, you are planning on introducing some > other GNUmake specific constructs or something else perhaps ? > Humble reminder.
If you'd like some objective justification why these patches make things better, please give me some merits that I can check against. Alternatively I'll push these within a few days. Thanks Emil _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
